I don't think he was counting on IBM and the open-souce folks being utterly unwilling to settle
I'm not so sure. IBM has a long-standing tradition of -not- settling cases like this one, where their business model is being attacked. Quite correctly, they see their reputation and future plans as being worth much more than settling, which in the public eye is often times an admission of guilt.
As far as the Open Source community goes, there is no "settle" at stake - we haven't been sued. We're not engaged in a legal battle with SCO, our fight is one of perception in the public and business eyes.
The more I wonder why on earth SCO chose IBM as a target for the breach of contract suit, the more I believe they chose IBM because they knew IBM wouldn't settle. It makes for a much longer, drawn-out drama which allows plenty of time for FUD tactics, and every day increases the exposure of "tainted Linux" to more people.
If SCO's tactic was to discolor the reputation of Linux and Open Source in general, which is seems clear is at least part of their plan, IBM was an ideal target because they won't settle. They'll fight.
OR creating sufficent legal costs for IBM that it's cheaper to buy them than fight it out in the courts.
What's interesting is that IBM almost never decides this. They are a rare company in that they take a long view of such litigation, and tend to include the value of precedent against their upcoming interests in that "cost" you speak of.
I'll bet they'd be perfectly willing to spend many times SCO's market cap on this lawsuit, because their financial interests lie in the future of Linux, not in the short-term loss the court fees would bring.
That is a better way to say it, thanks. I was indeed referring to obtaining permission.
With the GPL, you don't need to obtain permission from the copyright holder to distribute; you simply need to agree to the terms of the license. It is more free in that way; you are assumed to have permission as long as you adhere to the conditions set forth.
Invalidation of the GPL would mean that existing GPL'd software could be incorporated into commercial code without restriction or credit to the original author.
No, it wouldn't. If the GPL is found to be invalid, then normal copyright law applies. Nothing written under it could be distributed, extended, etc. without express permission from the copyright holder.
The GPL doesn't protect code; copyright law does that. The GPL grants freedoms where normal copyright law would restrict them.
This brings us to the keyword itself. Depending on the environment using "Computer" as the keyword or trigger may not be a good choice. For instance in an IT environment the word computer is likely to come up often
Hmm... I'm not so sure. In most IT environments I've worked in, the word "computer" is hardly ever heard. Workstation, server, host, box, etc., but not often "computer".
I'd agree with the need for a unique keyword, though. I'm reminded of Niven's The Integral Trees in which the English-speaking peoples voice-activated devices responded to the Russian word for "command" - I can't remember the actual word.
Try asking why they require your SSN, next time you're asked.
Often, private companies have no legitamate use for your Social Security Number. You might be surprised how often they actually don't need it, and can use an invented number instead.
You may also be surprised how easy it is to not give it to people. Try it sometime. For more information, try reading here.
Government agencies are restricted regarding whether or not they can ask for your SSN to use it as an identifier. Shortly, they must include a Prvacy Act Disclosure Notice, which will describe which law allows them to ask, whether or not you have to comply, and what will happen if you don't.
Private companies, individuals, etc. are not subject to these restrictions at all, so you could potentially see some abuse there. However, just as there is no law that says companies can't ask for your SSN, there's no law that says you have to give it to them.
I doubt this crap will make it to court. SCO is bluffing all the way.
As another poster pointed out, SCO no longer has a choice. They cannot simply wave a magic wand and make IBM's countersuit disappear if IBM isn't interested in an out of court solution.
They may have been bluffing, but IBM has called them on it.
Nope. Though the following pertains to bulk mail, and as an extension also to spam, it fits here, too.
Cheif Justice Berger, c. 1970:
"Nothing in the Constitution compels us to listen to or view any unwanted communication, whatever its merit. We categorically reject the argument that a vendor has a right under the Constitution or otherwise to send unwanted material into the home of another. If this prohibition operates to impede the flow of even valid ideas, the answer is that no one has a right to press even 'good' ideas on anunwilling recipient. The asserted right of a mailer, we repeat, stops at the out
er boundary of every person's domain."
I respond to flamebait for the first time ever. Sigh. =)
You, sir, seem to be in denial of the fact that guns are designed solely to kill people. Quickly. Efficiently.
Actually, firearms are designed solely to fling a bit (or several bits) of lead or other material in a specific direction at high speed.
What the user points them at, whether it be paper or metal targets for sport, animals for hunting, or people to kill or defend a nation, is up to the end user.
It is the preservation of the freedom of a civilian to do the first two that the NRA tries to protect. It's an important freedom.
Since disk drives are cheap, backup should be cheap too.
Ah, if only this were true. (Actually, it begs the question. =) Every time I hear "disk is cheap" I try to correct the speaker - "disk drives are cheap".
Long term storage, and and subsequent retrieval, which implies administration and a reasonable expectation of longevity on the backup medium, can be very expensive.
I don't think I'd trust anything valuable and volatile to a bunch of mirrors that I don't have service agreements with. Maintaining lots of data is costly, and I don't expect Joe Mirror to pay for it for me.
Slashdot Mirror
If SCO wants to assert that BSD contains code that is in their IP portfolio, they're going to have to invent a time machine.
Remember, this settlement is the one that established a legal precedent about BSD4.4 Lite being unencumbered by AT&T IP rights.
How do you attack a settlement, exactly? Get one of the parties to the agreement to reneg?
A settlement isn't something that can be appealed, as far as I know; and even if it could be, I'd bet certainly not by an uninvolved party.
I'm not so sure. IBM has a long-standing tradition of -not- settling cases like this one, where their business model is being attacked. Quite correctly, they see their reputation and future plans as being worth much more than settling, which in the public eye is often times an admission of guilt.
As far as the Open Source community goes, there is no "settle" at stake - we haven't been sued. We're not engaged in a legal battle with SCO, our fight is one of perception in the public and business eyes.
The more I wonder why on earth SCO chose IBM as a target for the breach of contract suit, the more I believe they chose IBM because they knew IBM wouldn't settle. It makes for a much longer, drawn-out drama which allows plenty of time for FUD tactics, and every day increases the exposure of "tainted Linux" to more people. If SCO's tactic was to discolor the reputation of Linux and Open Source in general, which is seems clear is at least part of their plan, IBM was an ideal target because they won't settle. They'll fight.
Try going to an Apple store, grabbing hold of the silver monitor mount on an iMac, and lifting.
Those bases are heavy. I don't think anyone has to worry about a 3-4lb(?) LCD tipping their computer over.
What's interesting is that IBM almost never decides this. They are a rare company in that they take a long view of such litigation, and tend to include the value of precedent against their upcoming interests in that "cost" you speak of.
I'll bet they'd be perfectly willing to spend many times SCO's market cap on this lawsuit, because their financial interests lie in the future of Linux, not in the short-term loss the court fees would bring.
If you click on a URL that leads to an FTP site, Panther opens a new Finder window with the FTP site mounted like a network drive.
You can also cause this to occur by using Command-K in the Finder and entering the FTP URL in the resulting dialog.
Someone like, maybe, Linus Torvalds?
Using myself as an example, I'd be the last one I'd want teaching technology to someone else. I may be a sharp admin, but I'm a lousy teacher.
Took me a while to realize that, but it's true.
With the GPL, you don't need to obtain permission from the copyright holder to distribute; you simply need to agree to the terms of the license. It is more free in that way; you are assumed to have permission as long as you adhere to the conditions set forth.
No, it wouldn't. If the GPL is found to be invalid, then normal copyright law applies. Nothing written under it could be distributed, extended, etc. without express permission from the copyright holder. The GPL doesn't protect code; copyright law does that. The GPL grants freedoms where normal copyright law would restrict them.
Granted, I'm using version 2.0.4, and don't know whether or not Workstation 4 would run or not.
Hmm... I'm not so sure. In most IT environments I've worked in, the word "computer" is hardly ever heard. Workstation, server, host, box, etc., but not often "computer".
I'd agree with the need for a unique keyword, though. I'm reminded of Niven's The Integral Trees in which the English-speaking peoples voice-activated devices responded to the Russian word for "command" - I can't remember the actual word.
Often, private companies have no legitamate use for your Social Security Number. You might be surprised how often they actually don't need it, and can use an invented number instead.
You may also be surprised how easy it is to not give it to people. Try it sometime. For more information, try reading here.
There are other places to look?
Private companies, individuals, etc. are not subject to these restrictions at all, so you could potentially see some abuse there. However, just as there is no law that says companies can't ask for your SSN, there's no law that says you have to give it to them.
As another poster pointed out, SCO no longer has a choice. They cannot simply wave a magic wand and make IBM's countersuit disappear if IBM isn't interested in an out of court solution.
They may have been bluffing, but IBM has called them on it.
Nope. Though the following pertains to bulk mail, and as an extension also to spam, it fits here, too. Cheif Justice Berger, c. 1970: "Nothing in the Constitution compels us to listen to or view any unwanted communication, whatever its merit. We categorically reject the argument that a vendor has a right under the Constitution or otherwise to send unwanted material into the home of another. If this prohibition operates to impede the flow of even valid ideas, the answer is that no one has a right to press even 'good' ideas on anunwilling recipient. The asserted right of a mailer, we repeat, stops at the out er boundary of every person's domain."
It says "to or from", so I'm guessing the recipient mailbox (where the user retrieved the mail) or the originator must be in California.
If the device can't write, it can't update the disc...
Nah. "Microsoftened."
You are -not- allowed to do that.
You, sir, seem to be in denial of the fact that guns are designed solely to kill people. Quickly. Efficiently.
Actually, firearms are designed solely to fling a bit (or several bits) of lead or other material in a specific direction at high speed.
What the user points them at, whether it be paper or metal targets for sport, animals for hunting, or people to kill or defend a nation, is up to the end user.
It is the preservation of the freedom of a civilian to do the first two that the NRA tries to protect. It's an important freedom.
Popularity of the name Chelsea:
2001 156
2000 140
1999 123
1998 94
1997 73
1996 57
1995 48
1994 46
1993 25
1992 15
1991 19
1990 24
I guess parent-child reputation goes both ways.
Ah, if only this were true. (Actually, it begs the question. =) Every time I hear "disk is cheap" I try to correct the speaker - "disk drives are cheap".
Long term storage, and and subsequent retrieval, which implies administration and a reasonable expectation of longevity on the backup medium, can be very expensive.
I don't think I'd trust anything valuable and volatile to a bunch of mirrors that I don't have service agreements with. Maintaining lots of data is costly, and I don't expect Joe Mirror to pay for it for me.
Except in Great Britain, where it's "licence".